This past week I received a mailing from my alma mater, Westminster Theological Seminary. Sent to all teaching elders in the PCA, it included a cover letter from Dr. David B. Garner (asc. prof., syst. theo.) and a DVD on the subject of inerrancy.

The DVD provides a summary WTS’s defense of the doctrine of inerrancy. It includes three parts: 1) Dr. Garner’s introduction and then narration of the subject matter on the DVD, 2) WTS board-member Dr. Harry Reeder’s explanation of the seriousness of the need to defend inerrancy yet again in our current era, and 3) Dr. Vern Poythress’s explanation of WTS’ document, Affirmations and Denials on the Doctrine of Scripture.

This document was adopted by the Board of WTS in December, 2008. Since then it has been adopted by some PCA Presbyteries as a helpful clarification of chapter 1 of the Westminster Confession of Faith in relation to the recent attacks on the doctrine of inerrancy.

If you are a TE in the PCA, I urge you to consider taking two actions: 1) watching and listening to the DVD you’ve received from WTS, and 2) taking action to have your presbytery adopt this statement as a response to the current attacks on inerrancy. If you are not a PCA TE, I urge you to recommend these actions to any PCA TE’s you know.

We need to stand up now and defend this most vital doctrine of our faith. A whole new generation is in jeopardy. Let it not be said that our faith was faithless in response to this threat against God’s veracity.

I recently finished reading the most recent issue of the Westminster Theological Journal. In it Gregory K. Beale has an excellent article in which he offers an exegetical defense of the necessity of inerrancy. I won’t offer a review of that article here, but rather encourage y’all to get a hold of it. It is pretty good.

In the article Beale uses God’s standards for prophets speaking His word to make the case that inerrancy is indeed an essential and necessary characteristic of the Bible. Centered mostly in an excursive in Revelation, Beale offers a pretty convincing argument. (But, of course, I’m already a kool-aide drinker, so what do I know?)

As I read the argument I was reminded of a passage pressed upon me in my early days of discipleship, Deut. 18:20-22:

20 But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.’ 21 And if you say in your heart, ‘How may we know the word that the LORD has not spoken?’ – 22 when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him.

So, is not God’s word written by men called under the standards of prophetic ministry? Yes, of course. And do these standards not require that their words be true? Yes, of course. Specifically, is not the characteristic of truth in the above passage specifically historical truthfulness, that is accuracy in terms of what actually does happen in time? The passage certainly does say that.

So, if it be maintained that God’s word does indeed contain historical inaccuracies (e.g., no real Adam), does this not mean, at the very least, that Moses (and any inspired editor of the Pentateuch), fails the Deuteronomical test for a prophet speaking for God?

At the very least, we should not “be afraid” of Moses. Let’s throw out any book he had a hand in writing, and of course any book dependent upon his writings. (Uhh, wait a minute, that includes the whole Bible.)

Wait, here is a worse thought! Suppose you want to maintain inspiration, but deny inerrancy. That would mean that Moses really was speaking for God. So, if there are errors in the Bible, that would mean God Himself is guilty of being a false prophet. Now we’re facing a real dilemma. If false prophets should die, God should die for authoring error in His own name.

I don’t know about you, but I’m sure not going to start throwing stones at God. Instead, I’m going to stick with my conviction about inerrancy. It is much simpler to believe the Bible is what is says it is, God’s own inspired, infallible, AND inerrant word, than to spend the time trying to figure a way out of the mental knots one ties himself in when he denies inerrancy.

Been trying to find time to make a couple of other posts on inerrancy (e.g., necessity of historic Adam, inerrancy bibliography.) Yet seems that the busy-ness in Lane’s September has spilled over and rolled down hill to Alabama ;-)

In the meantime, here is a recent statement on the nature of Scripture, adopted by our brothers in Rocky Mountain Presbytery, PCA. Without any particular comments at this time, I post it here for a moment of reflection and consideration (as reported at The Aquila Report). It does appear to touch on all the hot button issues we’ve discussed.

In light of the conversation here, I’ve been planning this post for a few weeks now. Frankly, I’ve been concerned that “younger” evangelicals are bothered by the appearance of secular sourced evidence that “proves” the Bible contains errors. I’ve been there and continue to face this challenge.

I note in many of their questions and comments an underlying angst. They are frustrated, in part, because the old inspiration-inerrancy-infallibility triad seems fatally broken by unquestionable secular evidence. They try to couch this in terms of “determining how the Bible is authoritative,” all the while dismissing the intra-Biblical evidences for its inerrancy.

In reality, it seems at least to me, they are bowing before the Secular god of Objectivity. I read in them an unacknowledged (somewhat unaware) allegiance to the supremacy of rationalism over God himself. I realize they will argue differently. Still …

I simply want to remind them, or possibly introduce some of them, to the wisdom of our forefathers who already faced the challenge of the god Objectivity, and found the Bible’s own answer to slay it. It is found in the Westminster Confession’s first chapter, on the Bible:

WCF 1.5 We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture, (1Ti 3:15 1) and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole, (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God;

yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the word in our hearts. (1Jh 2:20,27; Jh 16:13,14; 1Co 2:10,11,12; Isa 59:21.)

Note that we can acknowledge the “under the Sun” rational evidences for the Bible’s claim to being God’s word. Yet our only full assurance of this fact, the only objectivity we have if you will, is subjectively sourced – it is the Spirit’s own witness in our hearts that we (objectively) know these things to be true.

What this means for inerrancy (and inspiration and infallibility) is at least:

1. We will always find our convictions here fatally challenged by any system which assumes man is the ultimate authority.
2. We can only be assured in our convictions by the Spirit’s work in us as individuals.

This is a curse: Objectivity went out the window when our first parents rebelled against the Author of Objectivity. It is because of the fall that we cannot, as mere men, know for sure. It is because of the fall that Secularism will always rise up with new, seemingly insurmountable challenges to the Bible as God’s word.

And a blessing: God graces his children with the removal of the curse, and restores to us a surety that surpasses mere knowledge. No antagonist, no enemy, no person set on destroying your faith can touch such surety. You will not find comfort in trying to come up with a scheme where God uses error to speak truth – it is in the end irrational because God has said so (in the Bible in particular.) You will, however, find comfort in resting in God’s own witness.

“Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible (affirmed by the Spirit) tells me so.”

– Reed DePace

Post-script: after reading some blogs of neo-errantists, I expect some will laugh at my assumption of their naivety concerning the Spirit’s inward witness. They will respond, “of course, and that’s how we know we know what we know (about the Bible) is right.”

Fair enough. The real question is not whether or not you or I say the Spirit confirms, especially that which we disagree on (inerrancy.) The question is what does the Bible say? After all, it is the only judge of who has the credible right to claim the Spirit’s amen to their convictions.

Two final thoughts I hope the neo-errantists will consider. 1) I’ve yet to see serious interaction with the biblical claims to inerrancy. Rather, you’ve offered little less than a dismissive comment or two.

2) Consider that in principle you have no basis for assuming anything in the Bible is inerrant. Or, putting aside the inerrancy angle for the sake of the discussion – your position has left you with no basis on which to affirm infallibility. Your position leaves no place for the objective work of God to authoritatively show itself. In principle, everything in the Bible, and therefore in the ministry of the Church, is left up to the autonomous opinion of the individual.

Your’s is a position which has removed the mantle of sacredness from the sacred Scriptures, and has lain it across the shoulders of the individual. Be ware the “demons” you let loose; they will not easily be re-caged.

This is just a quick comment about a phenomenon in this inerrancy discussion that disturbs me. It is particularly addressed to all those (young) men who find the orthodox inerrancy position untenable.

I have paid some attention to the blogs of those opposed to the orthodox view of inerrancy. There has been quite a bit of critique of my posts here and the comments. That is all well and good. I blog because I hope to have conversations with others that Christ might use to bless His Church.

I’ve been struck and saddened however by the great degree to which much of the criticism is wrong-headed. Y’all are both assuming things not said, and then working off that asusmption, offering criticisms that simply miss the mark. Your confident assertions of how right you are, and how wrong we are, give sad evidence of a serious lack of critical listening and judgment on your part.

I’m not writing to this vent. (My choice of words here would make it much more obvious if that was my intention.) Rather I’m posting this because I am concerned.

Many of you are young yet. I’m not disparaging your obvious intellectual skills. I willingly admit many of you are miles beyond me.

Rather I see you making young man’s mistake. You are so busy arguing against what you think is wrong that you are not really listening to your opponents. Quite frankly a number of you read what I’m saying as if I were an inflexible fundamentalist with a “the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it!” mentality.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Seriously, aside from a few of you who have commented here, you are so busy apply labels to me (and the others defending orthodox inerrancy) that you are justifying yourself in conclusions for which you have little support.

Asking questions, struggling with the issues is good. But to misread, and then mischaracterize, and on that basis conclude, “Therefore my opinion is right,” is dangerous.

Let me end by hopefully offering a blessing:

Before destruction a man’s heart is haughty, but humility comes before honor. ~ Proverbs 18:12

With you, because of Christ, I am committed to pursuing his blessing of humility in this discussion.

My oldest daughter is working through Calvin’s Institutes as part of a multi-year homeschool course. I have the joy of (re)reading along with her. While reading something on providence (last part of book 1), I stopped at a comment by Calvin concerning the language of accommodation in the Bible. This got me thinking about this whole topic in relation to the discussion here.

Enns’ (et.al.) suggest that the use of error in the Bible (at least some) is an accommodation by God to the pre-scientific understanding of the original readers. E.g., God used ANE cosmogonies in Gen 1-11, not because they were historically factual, but because this was how Moses’ exodus generation had learned to think about such topics. The argument goes that in order to help his people understand the (underlying) spiritual truth of the text God accommodated his communication to their own erroneous scientific understanding.

I’d like to challenge this via the issue of God’s accommodating language.

First, it seems apparent that God does accommodate some of his communication in the Bible to the limits of human readers. The use of anthropomorphic descriptions of God fits this principle. E.g., God’s “hand” is such a use, ascribing physical qualities to a spiritual being for the sake of our understanding. I.e., such texts are not really saying God as Spirit has a real physical hand, but merely using that to describe an otherwise incomprehensible attribute in terms we recognize.

Second this is accommodation is not the same as what Enns (et.al.) is talking about. I think the critical difference, the distinguishing characteristic is seen the distinction between the transcendent nature of God’s being, and the immanent nature of the Cosmos. Usually this is described as the difference between God’s infiniteness and our finiteness.

Here’s the contrast:

> God uses language of accommodation for any subject that falls under the heading of transcendence. He does so because our finiteness limits our ability to understand his infiniteness.
> Contrarily, God does not use accommodating language for any subject within the realm of our finiteness, literally the created cosmos. This is because all such subjects are within our created abilities to understand.

Look at this from another angle. Enns (et.al.) posit God’s accommodating our fallenness in his communication. I.e., it is not because we are finite that we cannot understand the nature of creation, historical fact, etc. Rather (according to Enns) because the fall makes us prone to error, God willingly accommodates his communication of truth to our error-proneness.

Hopefully y’all will see that this goes completely contrary to the whole intention of God’s communication in the Bible:

“You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.” John 8:32

Specifically it is the question of Creation as reported in Gn 1:1-2:4. For those who affirm an error-laden-inerrancy, this is the really big error in the Bible. After all, Secular Science has all but proven that evolution, both biological and cosmological, is the unquestionable fact.

Sitting in classes at WTS, it was this problem that most exercised the “young evangelicals” around me (I was in my later 30’s when I went to WTS.) Enns’ solution (God’s accommodation to man’s errors) was the “cage” that finally contained this gorilla for a number of them. I daresay, caging this particular gorilla has been at the forefront of the “error-problems” of many of the errantists participating in this blog. (I could be wrong, but …)

I admit to appreciating the angst of younger evangelicals concerning this subject. Popular culture is a serious idol to go up against. One is foolish to do so with any weapon but the honest to goodness sword of truth. If in some way Gn 1:1-2:4 on the face of it acts to dull the sword of truth, by all means let’s fix this.

The problem again begins with one’s presuppositions. I for one am not ready to crown Secular Science with inerrancy and infallibility. Meteorologists still get it wrong, crops still fail, people still die. I.e., Secular Science has a long way to go before it can claim the inerrancy/infallibility that is inherent in God’s being and His word. Thus I see the seriousness of the challenge.

But there is something more important than being laughed at by a bunch of mocking unbelievers who think any of my convictions are just so much evidence of my weak mind and foolishness. I’m not ready to conclude that God has used error to communicate some of the most critical truths in the Bible.

Assume for the sake of discussion that God’s creation account accommodates itself to the errors of the ANE cosmogonies common during Moses recording of Genesis. That is, God had Moses not record a factually accurate account, but specifically used the erroneous ANE’s creation myths as the basis for his creation story.

O.k. then, let’s deal with the question of trustworthiness, of reliability. Assuming that the account is not all pure myth (error), how do we determine what parts are true? Not what parts are true, but what hermeneutical principle(s), found in the Bible itself, will enable us to reliably determine what parts are true and can be counted upon to be trustworthy?

I dare so you will search in vain for such hermeneutical tools.

The structure of Genesis (i.e., the waw-consecutive) requires that we read the succeeding stories as one whole cloth with the creation story. But let’s limit our questioning to Gn 2-3. If the creation story is error-laden, then on what basis are we to prove that Adam is historical? If we do not have a historical Adam, then what of the Fall? I.O.W., following the necessarily logic of the error-laden-inerrancy reading of Gn 1:1-2:4, we are left concluding that Adam and the Fall are nothing more than myth, and that God used these errors to rhetorically communicate some “truth” in these passages.

Take this to its next necessary connection, Romans 5:12-20. If Adam and the Fall are merely rhetorical, then Jesus’ atonement is as well. There is no other conclusion we can reach. Get this, beginning with the presupposition that Secular Science must be right, and the Bible’s creation account must be an accommodation with the ANE error-laden creation myths, we end up with nothing more than a rhetorical atonement.

I enjoy listening to the hubristic claims by some in the media that they only report the truth; that they are rigorous in checking their facts, and so their reports can be trusted. Then someone comes along with impeccable evidence that proves the inerrant reporter is made of clay like the rest of us.

Huh? God knowingly communicates in the Bible via errors, and this makes him more, not less trustworthy?

In this post I want to offer some suggestions to counter this irrationality. Contrary to the position that says we have to live with the fact that the Bible is filled with errors, there are perfectly rational alternative explanations for the (supposed) errors in the Bible, alternatives that do not begin with the presupposition: God trustworthily communicates truth via error.

I do not propose to offer any “proof” here. (I think there are reasons why God does not offer us proof – a future post will address that topic.)

Rather I propose to offer perfectly reasonable alternatives; alternatives which presuppose God trustworthily communicates truth inerrantly. I hope to show that there is no need to bow before the unbelieving higher-critical scholars, and then try to come up with a position of error-laden inerrancy.

Let’s use Daniel 9:1 one as our example passage (ESV): In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, by descent a Mede, who was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans-

The problem, according the errantists is that ancient near eastern (ANE) historical sources prove that this is wrong. These ANE sources prove that there never was a Persian king named Darius who was the son of Ahasuerus. Thus, the Bible must be wrong.

I’ll leave it others to list all the viable alternatives to assuming the Bible is wrong. Instead, I want to put the shoe on the other foot. Which is more plausible, that the Bible is wrong here, or that the ANE sources are wrong? Here are three common characteristics of secular historical sources, characteristics which mark their errancy and fallibility.

ANE Name Usage

Ancient naming practices were not as controlled as our modern western name process – recorded on the birth certificate it is as good written in stone! Not so in the ANE. Like any culture, ANE cultures used names in a variety of ways naming individuals, that when recorded in history, can lead to confusion.

E.g., sometimes a given name of one important person becomes an honorific title for others following after him. “Caesar” was one of Julius’s personal family names. With his successor and nephew, Augustus “Caesar” this name became a title ascribed to all succeeding Roman emperors (and their titular descendents in Germany, “Kaiser” and Russia, “Czar”.)

Sometimes someone just did something that added a name to his names. I’m sure most American readers will know who I mean when I say I love the Duke. (Movie actor John Wayne for those amongst us who have not had the cultural development of the rest of us ;-).) It would be easy 500 years from now, with spotty records from our period, to get confused: John Wayne, Duke, Marion Morrison (John’s birth name) – are we talking one guy, two guys, three guys, etc.?

Other times adoption, political maneuvers, critical societal shifts, etc., resulted in names being associated with individuals that were not well documented in historical records. E.g., there is some evidence that “Ahasuerus” was something of a titular name that was assumed as a part of the names ascribed to a Persian king.

Whether or not this is the explanation is not the point. What is the point is that there is sufficient evidence from ANE sources to provide plausible naming explanations for Dan. 9:1.

Spotty Historical Records

Of course, those who believe the ANE sources that “prove” Dan 9:1 is an error, are assuming that these secular sources are themselves inerrant! Yet history is replete with examples of such inerrancy assumptions being proven false.

One of the best examples is the claim that Belshazzar was not the last king of Babylon, and that Daniel was wrong in calling him so. After all, “inerrant” ANE secular sources “proved” that Nabonidus was the last Babylonian king.

That was until some ANE records turned up that explained that Nabonidus had appointed his son Belshazzar to be his regent, his “king-in-fact” in Babylon while he went off to fight an enemy. So what of all those claims that the Bible was proved wrong by these ANE records? Ooops …

Again, I’m not claiming this is the explanation for Dan 9:1. I am challenging the presupposition that the ANE records are inerrant. Why do we need to assume that the Bible must be wrong? It is just as likely that the historical record is spotty, that there is information missing from the ANE sources.

Propaganda History

The cliché “the victor write the history,“ is not always true. Sometimes the loser writes it, and he is believed.

My favorite example of this is the supposed victory of Ramses II over the Hittites at Kadesh in 1274 B.C. This was possibly the largest chariot battle ever fought in the ANE, with over 5,000 chariots involved. Due to the large amount of Egyptian records, it was commonly accepted that this was a stunning victory for Ramses II and the Egyptians.

That was, until Hittites records were discovered – and they told a significantly different story. In the end, scholars debate whether Ramses II secured a Pyrrhic victory (brought his army home, but did not capture Kadesh,) secured a draw with the Hittites, or suffered a stunning defeat.

So what of Ramses II’s claims of an overwhelming victory? Pure propaganda!

Now again, I’m not proposing such a solution for the question in Dan. 9:1. I am pointing out that ANE sources are just as likely to be nothing more than propaganda, lies intended to serve political ends, as they are accurate historical records.

I’ve given these three examples, again not as solutions to the “apparent” error in Dan. 9:1. Rather I’m seeking to make one simple point. The ANE cultures whose historical records “prove” that the Bible has errors in it were cultures just like ours, filled with error-prone people.

On what basis do we presuppose that these sources are more trustworthy than the Bible? If the Bible were nothing more than another ANE record written by error-prone men, well then of course it would be no different, and equally as likely to be in error as the contradicting secular sources.

However, we’re talking about God’s record here. Do we really want to presume that God needs to check his facts?

The interaction on the previous post (Incoherent Inerrancy) has been both irenic and helpful. In my estimation, our brothers who no longer affirm the orthodox doctrine of inerrancy proved the point of my post (their assumed objections notwithstanding.)

Yesterday at breakfast my wife and I discussed this thread. Imagine what it’s like eating scrambled eggs trying to make the conversation of a bunch of eggheads palatable. That mental sweat led me to come up with a few additional posts that I hope might focus things for readers here; things they might not have the background or time to track with. This is the first of these “focusing” posts.

In my estimation the most significant issue focusing the differences between the two positions here (error-laden inerrancy, eLi, and error-free inerrancy, eFi) is that of presuppositions. In question form, what are the principles, presumed undeniably true, which function as the starting point and interpretive control for each position? These unquestioned principles are critical because they determine how each position understands the issue of inerrancy. If a presupposition is wrong, then the conclusions reached by that position will be flawed as well.

So, for each position, let me list the key presuppositions. I’m not proposing to list all of these, just the ones that focus the critical difference between both positions. I believe this will lead us to the vital question in this whole discussion, one that each of us must answer when reading our own Bibles.

eLi Presuppositions

1. Man’s knowledge challenges the veracity of some Biblical passages. There are two key sources for this knowledge: scientific knowledge and historical knowledge (historical records, archeology, etc.)
2. This knowledge is undeniably true. It is not merely rational, but this knowledge has objectively been proven to be unquestionably true.
3. Therefore the Biblical passages which disagree with this knowledge must be in error.
4. Therefore the Bible must teach some sort of error-laden inerrancy (eLi.)

Following these presuppositions, proponents of eLi argue that all they are about is letting the Bible explain for itself how it uses errors, and yet itself is still inerrant. (Some proponents have abandoned inerrancy altogether, focusing solely on showing that the (supposed) errors in the Bible do not detract from its infallibility.)

It is important to note the role played by these presuppositions, especially the first two. These are presupposed to be true; they cannot possibly be false. Given this, anything in the Bible that disagrees with any of this unquestionable knowledge is, by definition, an error.

eFi Presuppositions

1. Inspiration: the Bible claims to be written by God (2Ti 3:16 – 2Sa 23:2; Lk 1:70; 1Pt 1:19-21.) “Holy Scripture must be acknowledged as the Word of God by virtue of its divine origin.” (Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy, Part III, Section A.)

2. Inerrancy: the Bible claims to be like its Divine Author, without error (Jh 17:17 – 2Sa 22:31; Ps 12:6; 18:30; 19:7-9; 119:140-144, 151-152; Pro 30:5; Rom 7:12; Jas 3:17.) “’Inerrant’ signifies the quality of being free from all falsehood or mistake and so safeguards the truth that Holy Scripture is entirely true and trustworthy in all its assertions.” (CSBI, Part III, Section C.)

To be sure, most proponents will affirm these same presuppositions. Yet they do so in a secondary manner. That is, their commitment to these presuppositions is secondary to, and therefore dependently submissive to, the presuppositions previously listed.

They will affirm inspiration, but it is an inspiration that accommodates itself to the errors of mankind. They will affirm inerrancy (most), but as noted previously, this is an incoherent inerrancy, an error-laden inerrancy. They will affirm infallibility, but it is an infallibility merely of divine pronouncement, functioning in the presence of and contrary to rational evidence that would remove the reliability of any other document.

Thus, these are not actually presuppositions after all, merely principles to be re-defined.

In the end, it is their presupposed commitment to the authority of knowledge from men that leads them to the eLi position, not what the Bible says for itself. That is, they have given the position of final authority, the role of final judge of the Bible, to Man, not God.

In contrast, the Bible claims that God is its final judge and authority. The Bible teaches that what it says, God says; its authority is His authority, for He is its ultimate Author (paraphrase from CSBI, Part III, Section A.)

So, as you read your Bible, here is the vital question to answer: God or Man, who ya gonna believe?!

Recently a few of the threads here have become, at least partly, directed toward a dominant tangent. This is the issue of the adjustment to the biblical doctrine of inerrancy offered by Dr. Peter Enns (Inspiration and Incarnation) and others.

What I’ve read in comments here at GB supports what I’ve learned already about this position. Its proponents want to maintain the following three points:

1. The Bible contains non-incidental errors.
2. The Bible itself is inerrant.
3. This is not a contradiction.

I won’t go into all the proper tweaking and explaining that needs to be attached to these in order to fairly understand these brothers. The critical thing to note is that they are arguing that the Bible does contain errors that are non-incidental; errors that necessarily impact the exegesis of doctrine.

Nor do I want to spend time noting the adjustments in definitions that these brothers make. This is most particularly with reference to what “inerrant” means.

Rather I want to speak as a pastor to these brothers, and ask them to consider their brothers and sisters in the pew. There are many more readers of this blog than posters. From the notes I’ve received, I’m pretty confident in saying that many of them are laypeople who come here looking for advice, insight, and help with questions that are bugging them. (I’m sure Lane and the other moderators will affirm that this is their take as well.)

Brothers, I have one word to summarize what I hear you saying: incoherent. No, I’m not saying that bits and pieces don’t make sense. Nor am I saying I do not track with your arguments. I do.

Nor am I ignorant of the underlying conversation. I graduated from WTS in ’99. I sat under, with respect and appreciation, Enns and the rest of the faculty, including: Green, Taylor, Groves, Kelly, et.al. (These fathers named merely because y’all often reference them in support of Enns. The rest of the faculty has my gratefulness as well.) I listened carefully. I followed what they were saying. While I don’t propose to be as bright as some, the mostly “A”‘s I received in class, I dare say, we’re not given because of their kindness.

As well, I’ve read I&I, and a host of other documents referenced in these conversations. All this to say, while I’m never going to be the next generation’s Sproul (Edwards, Owen, take your historical pick); I’m not a slouch who has it all figured out and is not interested in listening to anyone who disagrees with him.

If I find you arguments incoherent, what do you think the average layperson hears when they read what you’ve written? One of you recently actually said, in the same paragraph, the Bible has errors, and the Bible is inerrant. (A fair paraphrase.) The context of those statements did not remove the onus present in this summary.

Brothers, assume for a second your position is right, and it will be a blessing to the Church in the future. Does not the significance of the subject (the only rule for faith and practice, THE source of spiritual food for the people of God) necessitate more care and caution on your parts?

Your arguments are not as well thought out and erudite as you think. You have not yet listened carefully enough to your critics. It will not do to maintain as one of your standard retorts, “You’re not understanding what I am saying” (in multiple variations, a continual response from y’all.) Even if this were true (it is at times, and in some quarters, but not as generally as y’all want to think), even it were inerrantly true :) – does this not suggest a greater burden on your part to gentleness, patience, and longsuffering?

Now, yes, I do recognize that some of you do evidence these qualities at times. Yet y’all are not considering that even when you’re not “fending off the opponent” you speak with an incoherency to the broader Church. It is as if y’all have figured out the secret password, been admitted to the club, and now spend your time speaking gibberish to others outside the club – all under the motive of helping them gain admittance too.

I will let the cat of the bag so to speak, in terms of my convictions and fear. I have learned and accepted bits and pieces of arguments from your side. Yet I do not see your fundamental point. Rather, I believe your position is only supported via the use of a post-modern influenced redefinition of words and concepts. You are wrong, and this will be shown in time.

My fear is that you are starting another battle for the Bible. I know this is not what you say you want – but that is how you are proceeding.

For myself, I am gripped by the fear of both my own weaknesses, and my calling to protect the sheep from error. I pray you likewise be gripped more by the fear of your weaknesses and the calling of your discipleship.

I recognize my words here cannot help but to offer offense. I do not do so casually. I hope I’ve not been careless. I also recognize that for some of you, your first reaction will be just that: reaction.

Please though, pause and consider how incoherent this sounds: error-laden inerrancy. This is how you sound.

Books I have recently read

Oliver Twist, by Charles Dickens; Justification, by John Fesko; The Wheel of Time, by Robert Jordan; Recovering the Reformed Confessions, by Scott Clark; Brief Outline of Theology, by Friedrich Schleiermacher; Principles of Sacred Theology, by Abraham Kuyper

Books I am now reading

Exodus commentaries; Matthew commentaries; Turretin's Institutes of Elenctic Theology; Baker's new history of the church

Books for future reading

Turretin's Institutes; Joseph Caryl on Job, German encyclopedias of theology